By recruiting those who looked damn good doing it.
By faking it until he made it.
By ruthlessly attacking and minimizing, to the Crossfit community, any naysayers.

The jokes on everyone else, really, because millions more are being made.

Spot on!
It blows my mind that these people keep saying theyre evidence based, keep trying to become the official regime of the military, and keep expanding their influence, yet there is not a single legitimate and objective case study performed on this stuff, nor against a control, or any traditional program. Not even a single HQ member as any accreditations or university degrees in any field: ex phys, ex science, kinies, sport sci, none. There "journal" is plagued with inaccurate information.

Nothing to be done about it. In the US there's no requirement for any kind of fitness movement to actually work.

Apparently the HQ kids and Lauren have adequately contained Gregg's destructive tendencies by only trotting him out for certs and other big events.

The association with Reebok may end up killing Crossfit or eventually marginalizing it. Or, it may make "The Sport of Crossfit" a big dollar reality. Fit, athletic bodies wearing next to nothing is exciting to watch, I guess, if you've got enough cameras and on the fly editing capability. Glassman was right when he said "people will die for points"...that is, perhaps, the biggest issue boiled down to it's purest form.

Like any other sport, when it spits out a broken athlete at the end of the cycle, nobody will care. Just look at the NFL and how they keep attempting to sweep the concussion issue under the rug.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is so fallacious about the excerpt you posted?

It's mostly half-truth

1) The half-truth that cardiovascular conditioning can be obtained through power-biased work. The fallacy is the general assumption that there is a hard and fast dividing line between aerobic and anaerobic (glycolitic and ATP) systems, particularly for the kind of work @F does.
2) The half-truth that calculating VO2 max per kg biases against muscle mass. The implication that the only difference between a Tour de France athlete and an @F aficionado is muscle mass is silly. There are some athletes (rowers) who have enormous VO2 capacity on an absolute basis, but measure poorer per kg.